Subscribers got access to this report one month early. For a limited time, you can get access to all our actionable reports before they are made available to the public, along with Most Attractive, Most Dangerous Stocks or Best & Worst ETFs & Mutual Funds newsletters for as little as $9.99/month.
The Consumer Staples sector ranks first out of the ten sectors as detailed in my Sector Rankings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report. It gets my Very Attractive rating, which is based on aggregation of ratings of 10 ETFs and 15 mutual funds in the Consumer Staples sector as of July 17, 2014. Prior reports on the best & worst ETFs and mutual funds in every sector arehere.
Figure 1 ranks from best to worst the nine Consumer Staples ETFs that meet our liquidity standards and Figure 2 shows the five best and worst-rated Consumer Staples mutual funds. Not all Consumer Staples sector ETFs and mutual funds are created the same. The number of holdings varies widely (from 20 to 117). This variation creates drastically different investment implications and, therefore, ratings. The best ETFs and mutual funds allocate more value to Attractive-or-better-rated stocks than the worst ETFs and mutual funds, which allocate too much value to Neutral-or-worse-rated stocks.
To identify the best and avoid the worstETFs and mutual funds within the Consumer Staples sector, investors need a predictive ratingbased on (1) the stocks ratings of the holdings, (2) the all-in expenses of each ETF and mutual fund, and (3) the fund’s rank compared to all other ETFs and mutual funds. As a result, only the cheapest funds with the best holdings receive Attractive or better ratings. Investors need not rely on backward-looking ratings. My fund rating methodology is detailed here.
Investors seeking exposure to the Consumer Staples sector should buy one of the Attractive-or-better rated ETFs or mutual funds from Figures 1 and 2.
Get my ratings on all ETFs and mutual funds in this sector on my free mutual fund and ETF screener.
Figure 1: ETFs with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5
* Best ETFs exclude ETFs with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity.
Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples Index (FSTA) is excluded from Figure 1 because its total net assets (TNA) are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums.
Figure 2: Mutual Funds with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5
* Best mutual funds exclude funds with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity.
Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
ICON Funds: ICON Consumer Staples Fund (ICLEX) is excluded from Figure 2 because its total net assets (TNA) are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums.
State Street SPDR Consumer Staples Select Sector Fund (XLP) is my top-rated Consumer Staples ETF and Vanguard World Funds: Vanguard Consumer Staples Index Fund (VCSAX) is my top-rated Consumer Staples mutual fund. Both earn my Very Attractive rating.
PowerShares S&P SmallCap Consumer Staples Portfolio (PSCC) is my worst-rated Consumer Staples ETF and ICON Funds: ICON Consumer Staples Fund (ICRAX) is my worst-rated Consumer Staples mutual fund. Both earn my Neutral rating.
Figure 3 shows that 32 out of the 203 stocks (over 26% of the market value) in Consumer Staples ETFs and mutual funds get an Attractive-or-better rating. However, 8 out of 10 Consumer Staples ETFs (over 97% of total net assets) and 13 out of 15 Consumer Staples mutual funds (over 90% of total net assets) get an Attractive-or-better rating.
Figure 3: Consumer Staples Sector Landscape For ETFs, Mutual Funds & Stocks
Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
As detailed in “Cheap Funds Dupe Investors”, the fund industry offers many cheap funds but very few funds with high-quality stocks, or with what I call good portfolio management.
The Clorox Company (CLX) is one of my favorite stocks held by Consumer Staples ETFs and mutual funds and earns my Attractive rating. CLX earns one of the most consistent returns on invested capital (ROIC) of any company I cover. Since 2003, its ROIC has been between 10% and 12% every single year. CLX’s ability to earns such a consistently high ROIC says great things about its efficient use of capital and its ability to maintain a competitive advantage in its industry. One might expect the shares of such a consistently profitable company to command a premium valuation, but this does not seem to be the case. At its current valuation of ~$89/share, CLX has a price to economic book value (PEBV) ratio of just 1.2. This ratio implies that CLX will grow after-tax profit (NOPAT) by no more than 20% from its current level for the remainder of its corporate life. CLX should comfortably surpass those low expectations.
Bunge Ltd. (BG) is one of my least favorite stocks held by Consumer Staples ETFs and mutual funds and earns my Very Dangerous rating. BG also made it onto the Most Dangerous Stocks list for July. BG’s NOPAT has declined by 1% over the past four years while the company currently earns a bottom quintile ROIC of 4%. Making matters worse, BG has generated negative economic earnings every year since 2008. Despite these struggles, the stock remains richly valued. To justify its current price of ~$84/share, BG would need to grow NOPAT by 10% compounded annually for the next 15 years. This seems awfully optimistic for a company that hasn’t grown NOPAT for the past five years. Investors should avoid BG.
121 stocks of the 3000+ I cover are classified as Consumer Staples stocks.
Figures 4 and 5 show the rating landscape of all Consumer Staples ETFs and mutual funds.
My Sector Rankings for ETFs and Mutual Fundsreport ranks all sectors and highlights those that offer the best investments.
Figure 4: Separating the Best ETFs From the Worst ETFs
Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Figure 5: Separating the Best Mutual Funds From the Worst Mutual Funds
Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Review my full list of ratings and rankings along with reports on all 10 ETFs and 15 mutual funds in the Consumer Staples sector.
Kyle Guske II contributed to this report.
Disclosure: David Trainer and Kyle Guske II receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, sector or theme.